Three Legal Conundrums to Making REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation) Work

Seminar/Forum

Three Legal Conundrums to Making REDD+ (Reducing Emissions  from Deforestation and forest Degradation) Work

Level 2, Room 223
Law 106
185 Pelham Street

Map

More information

T: 9035 7717

law-creel@unimelb.edu.au

12.45pm for a 1pm start.

Light lunch will be served.

Convenor: Associate Professor Margaret Young, Melbourne Law School

In REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation), a community or individual is paid to avoid deforesting land or to reforest land that has been degraded.  Usually the payer then obtains greenhouse gas reduction credits for the carbon thus saved in biomass.  A coalition of  unlikely bedfellows pose this as a win-win-win in environmental  conservation: This is an efficient market mechanism where businesses and citizens mitigate greenhouse gas build up inexpensively,  providing a funding stream to protect imperilled biodiversity and functioning ecosystems, while transferring billions of dollars from global North to South.  

Yet REDD+ has attracted opponents who see potential methodological and human rights problems with its application.  In this talk, I will discuss three thorny legal conundrums that must be addressed if REDD+ is to work as its proponents advocate: 1) Carbon is a new form of property: Who may own what property rights in carbon in a given locale?   2) What and how is carbon  measured, monitored, reported, and verified in a REDD+ scheme, and who gets to dictate the terms?   3) How do we fulfil Environmental Democracy legal norms in REDD+ deals, where symmetries often exist in knowledge and power between those prizing forests for their carbon sequestration properties and those depending on forests for their livelihoods?

Presenter

  • Professor David Takacs
    Professor David Takacs, University of California, San Francisco